FILED

January 28, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt

Clerk

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

In Re: THE ESTATE OF MILDRED M. ) C/A NO. 03A01-9808-CH-00267

VERKSTROM, deceased, )

) SULLIVAN PROBATE

) NO. P-95-7553(L)

--------------------------------------------------)

GORMAN WADDELL, Co-Executor of )

the Estate of Mildred M. Verkstrom, ) SULLIVAN CHANCERY 

) NO. 27243(M)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

) HON. RICHARD E. LADD,

v. ) CHANCELLOR

)

EDNA M. GODWIN, )

)

Defendant-Appellant, )

--------------------------------------------------)

GORMAN WADDELL, Co-Executor of )

the Estate of Mildred M. Verkstrom, ) SULLIVAN CHANCERY

) NO. 27244(L)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BERNICE GATES, Co-Executrix, )

and )

BANK OF TENNESSEE, ) AFFIRMED

) AND

Defendants. ) REMANDED

ROBERT L. ARRINGTON and WILLIAM S. LEWIS, MOORE, STOUT,

WADDELL & LEDFORD. P.C., Kingsport, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

PAUL A. HARR, Kingsport, for Defendant-Appellant.

O P I N I O N

Franks, J.

In this declaratory judgment action, the issue on appeal is whether the
2

monies in an account established by the deceased belongs to her Estate, or passed by

operation of law to appellant, Edna M. Godwin.

The deceased opened the account in question in 1972 in her name, and

in 1980 added Bernice M. Gates as another signature on the account. On January 24,

1989, decedent deleted Gates’ name from the account and executed a new signature

card as the sole owner and signatory on the account. On May 27, 1994, another

signature ca rd was executed by the deceased and Edna Godwin. Subsequent to

decedent’s death, and after some payments were made from the account, the appellant

transferred the balance of $120,000.00 to herself.

Following trial on the stated issue, the Chancellor, in his Memorandum

Opinion, said:

I find that when she [Mrs. Verkstrom] added either sisters name,

whether it be Mrs. Gates . . . or Mrs. Gates and/or Mrs. Godwin . . . that

the intent was simply to be an additional signature in the case of her

disability could have drawn on the account to take care of her in the

nature of a power of attorney type situation. . . . Mrs. Verkstrom’s intent

is further shown in Exhibit #4, . . . First, that the original signature card

of 1972 had only Mrs. Verkstrom’s name. The card of August 8, 1980,

which is the second card and which added Bernice Gates indicia that

Mrs. Verkstrom did not intend right of survivorship except to have the

sister have the power to draw on the account is a fact that in the title of

the card it did not have right of survivorship shown. In the title of the

card it’s written on there tha t Mrs. Ve rkstrom is the only one that’s to

get the bank statement. And added on the back of the card it says “add

new signature” as the purpose of the card. . . . In the card of 1989, which

is C on Exhibit #4, Mrs. Verkstrom shows her intent once again by

putting the account back into her name only. Then on the last card of

May 27, 1994, D of Exhibit #4, the title of the account is Mildred M.

Verkstrom or Edna Godwin, not and. There’s a place on there to check

if it’s to be joint tenants with right of survivorship. That is not checked. 

And the title of the card is not listed with right of survivorship. And on

the back of the card is an explana tion for the new card and it says to

change name title only. It does not say anything about right of

survivorship. So those are the indicia then to support my finding that

the intent of Mrs. Verkstrom and her sister all through this was that the

property would remain Mrs. Ve rkstrom’s and therefore the property in

both accounts would go into her estate.

The evidence does not preponderate against the factual determinations made by the

Chancellor. T.R.A.P. Rule 13(d).
3

The signature card executed on January 24, 1989, shows the style of the

account as “Mildred M. Verkstrom”. The next signature card on this account

indicates that the account was an existing account, but opened on May 27, 1994, the

style of the account being “Mildred M. Verkstrom or Edna Godwin”. The account

signature card was signed by Mildred M. Verkstrom and Edna Godwin, and

immediately above their signatures, the following appears:

Should this account be in the names of, payable to, or subject to

withdrawal by two or more natural persons, depositor(s), designate(s),

ownership interests shown in the account title above or as checked

below.

[Not filled in] Joint tenants with right of survivorship, and

[Not filled in] Additiona l authorized signer (Power of Attorney).

By his/her signature(s) hereon Depositor(s) certifies the above and

acknowledges receipt of the Depositor Agreement with disclosures for

the Account indicated, and agrees to be bound by its terms as well as

any changes or additions hereafter adopted by bank.

The account was essentially renewed on January 24, 1989, and

Godwin’s name was added to the account on May 27, 1994, which changes occurred

after the effective date of the 1989 amendment to T.C.A. §45-2-703. Any pertinent

provisions of that Act are applic able to this account. See, In Re: Estate of Nichols,

856 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tenn. 1993). 

Appellant offered evidence that the bank had classified the account in its

records as a joint account with right of survivorship. The Chancellor properly rejected

this as controlling, and pointed out that in the account title there was no indication that

the account was a joint account with the right of survivorship. The bank’s customer

service representative who assisted deceased with the preparation of the signature card

in 1994, had no independent recollection of whether the deceased intended to establish

the account as a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. She did testify that she

had been instructed by the bank to only put both names in the account title if it wa s to

be a right of survivorship account. The record establishes that the bank’s customer
1

The document in pertinent part states: 

Remember, should the account be in the names of, payable to, or subject to withdrawal by

two or more individuals, then the ownership interest must be shown in the account title at the

top of the signature card or as checked in one of the designated blocks. Bank policy requires

one of the blanks on the signature card to be checked. This must be done before or at the

time the customer signs the card.

If a card involving multiple depositors is submitted CIF without an adequate description of

ownership interest (either in the styling or by checking the appropriate block), the card will

not be returned and you will be required to obtain another signed card with the appropriate

ownership interests designated.

2

T.C.A. §45-2-703.(e). Accounts described in subsection (c) shall establish the following

interests:

. . . (4) In the absence of any specific designation in accordance with subsection (d), property

held under the title, tenancy by the entireties, carries a right of survivorship; property held

under the title, joint tenancy, carries no right of survivorship unless a contrary intention is

expressly stated. Any other person to whose order the accounts or certificate of deposit is

subject shall be presumed to have power of attorney with respect thereto and not to be an

owner thereof. Such presumptions may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence

presented in the course of legal or equitable proceedings. Final judicial determinations

contrary to such presumptions shall not affect a bank’s earlier payment in accordance

therewith, or the limitations on liability conferred by the provisions of subsections (a) and (b)

4

service manual’s instructions on opening an account is that in the event that the

account is subject to withdrawls of two or more individuals, then the ownership

interest must be set forth in the account title at the top of the signature card, or as

checked in one of the designated boxes above the signature lines. It also requires that

one of the boxes must be checked.1

Under T.C.A. §45-2-703, a designation by the depositor of joint tenancy

with right of survivorship is conclusive evidence of the intention of all named that the

account proceeds pass to the survivor, but with the designation of “additional

authorized signatory” it is conclusive that the person so designated has power of

attorney with respect to such account and is not an owner of such account. Under

T.C.A. §45-2-703, where there is no designation of joint tenancy with a right of

survivorship, or designation of “additional authorized signatory”, accounts held by

joint tenants carry no right of survivorship unless a contrary intention is expressly

stated.2 Since none of the statutory designations is stated on the signatory card,
or §45-2-707.

5

T.C.A. §45-2-703(e)(4) is applicable, which establishes the presumption that the

appellant had possessed the power of attorney over the a ccount, but not as an owner. 

It was stipulated that the appellant did not deposit any of the funds in the account and

claimed no prior ownership in any of the funds. There is no clear and convincing

evidence to rebut the presumption that appellant possessed anything other than a

powe r of attorney relating to the a ccount. 

We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand with cost of the

appeal asse ssed to the appellant.

__________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

CONCUR:

___________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

___________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.